Table 8.--"t" test for amount of retardant 



Runs 

 compared 



Dryness 

 condition 

 amount 

 retardant 



Rate of spread 



Radiation 



Weight loss 



Average 

 rate of 

 spread 



Significance 

 of rate of 

 j spread 



Average 

 radiation 



Significance 

 of radiation 



Rate of 

 weight loss 



Significance 

 of rate of 

 ' weight loss 











ci . /nun. 



Fcrccnt 



RTT I /cn ft- /h-r 



d i u / . n . / nr 



Pore L±rit~ 



IjD s . / mi n • 





1 



1/3 I 



2 



ST 



0.222 





6.47 





0.16 





2 



1/3 I 



1 



ST 



.435 



99.5 



12.27 



99 



.25 



99.5 



3 



1/3 II 



2 



ST 



.264 





11.42 





.21 





4 



1/3 II 



1 



ST 



.516 



99.5 



15.83 



95 



.34 



99 



5 



1/3 III 



2 



ST 



.502 





6.75 





.23 





6 



1/3 in 



1 



ST 



1.034 



99.5 



15.38 



99.5 



.41 



95 



7 



2/3 I 



2 



ST 



.349 





10.29 





.23 





8 



2/3 I 



3 



ST 



.160 



99.5 



7.78 



x 70 



.12 



97.5 



9 



2/3 II 



3 



ST 



.258 





7.94 





.22 





i n 

 iU 



2/3 n 



2 



ST 



.405 



99.5 



7.69 



a N.S. 



.27 



90 



11 



2/3 I 



2 



LT 



.169 





5.10 





.14 





12 



2/3 I 



1 



LT 



.233 



95 



5.62 



3 60 



.15 



s 70 



13 



2/3 II 



2 



LT 



.216 





6.82 





.19 





14 



2/3 II 



1 



LT 



.418 



97.5 



9.31 



90 



.25 



4 70 



15 



2/3 in 



2 



LT 



.290 





7.28 





.16 





16 



2/3 m 



1 



LT 



1.208 



99.5 



17.21 



97.5 



.42 



99.5 



17 



F I 



2 



LT 



.205 





5.75 





.14 





18 



F I 



1 



LT 



.444 



99.5 



9.21 



95 



.28 



99.5 



19 



f n 



2 



LT 



.231 





6.53 





.17 





20 



f n 



1 



LT 



. 515 



99 



12.33 



99.5 



.32 



99.5 



21 



f in 



2 



LT 



.320 





6.35 





.19 





22 



F III 



1 



LT 



1.711 



99.5 



15.33 



99.5 



.42 



99.5 



Variation within runs is large and reduces the significance. Sm 7 and Sm 8 = 2.03; S y and S 8 = 4.17. 



2 The rate of 3 gal./l00 sq. ft. shows greater radiation than the rate of 2 gals./lOO sq.ft. Run 10 had no peaks 

 or humps in radiometer, while run 9 had peaks in all fires. Radiation in 10 is probably low, as supported by the 

 fact run 7 had higher radiation and was the same except it was condition I instead of II . 



3 In run 11 , all three fires had large peaks, while in run 12 the fires had no peaks, probably making the radia- 

 tion and weight loss high. Also, in run 12 one fire had a radiation of 3.9, pulling down the average radiation and 

 increasing the sums of squares . S = 2.02 and Sm = 1.17. 



" The significance is low because the variation within values ranges from .15 to .44 in run 14. S = . 15 and 

 Sm = .09. S is greater than the difference between runs 13 and 14. 



29 



